Why is the existence of The Big Bang agreed upon?

[phinds]

RE reply #9. Sudden violent expansion is exactly what an explosion is. There can have been no greater, nor more violent, rate of expansion than that provided by "inflation". This would have provided the ballistic impetus, (if "inflation" actually happened). Gravitational restraint would bring about the faster with distance view. Proof of this will be evidenced if we should see an increase in the rate at which galaxies move apart. Observers should be warned that this will give the impression of acceleration!
"As a rule, the more bizarre a thing is, the less mysterious it proves to be". (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

Yes, but an explosion happens at a PLACE. The expansion happened everywhere at once.

I Can't really comment on the rest of your post but to say that it doesn't make sense to me except for the Doyle quote.

 

[Peter Watkins]

All visual evidence, and the inflation theory, and the inflating balloon theory states that the big bang did take place at a single point in time and space, away from which all matter is moving. All the "rewinding", over four decades, in order to establish our age, point to this being the case, and being believed to be the case. There is no evidence that states otherwise.

 

[DaveC426913]

... the inflating balloon theory ...

Analogy. It's just an analogy to help people having trouble understanding. It has no predictive ability.

states that the big bang did take place at a single point in time and space,

A single point in time, yes. Single point in space, no.

It took place of space, not in space. i.e. everywhere in space.

 

[phinds]

All visual evidence, and the inflation theory, and the inflating balloon theory states that the big bang did take place at a single point in time and space, away from which all matter is moving. All the "rewinding", over four decades, in order to establish our age, point to this being the case, and being believed to be the case. There is no evidence that states otherwise.

Quite the contrary. ALL evidence states otherwise. You really should read up on this stuff before you make such incorrect pronouncements.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Peter has got the wrong end of the stick about how we get the age of the Universe from Hubble expansion.

The traditional big bang theory says that space and time expanded suddenly from a singularity ... that is to say that the universe had a state in which all time and space were the same place. This would be represented by a point in 4D - but that point does not have a specific location within space-time - it is space time.

The Hubble expansion does not procede from a particular (x,y,z) position in space which could be considered the center of some explosion. No matter where you are, you will discover yourself at the center of the expansion - ergo: it is everywhere at once.

It is a very common misconception. But fair enough - it's a tricky concept.

 

[Trailblzn]

I am not as learned as most (all of you) but I think the misconception at the beginning of this thread with black holes and white holes is that the first poster viewed black holes as funnels to somewhere like a tornado. A black hole does not take matter and transfer it somewhere else it take the matter and keeps it. The "funnel" concept is what is used to depict black holes on TV and movies and confuses people, they tend to think of black holes like powerfully attractive worm holes that transport matter from one point to another. Another universe where the "backend" of a black holes spits out matter as a white hole. I apologize if I am wrong about his misconception but this is how many of the "lay people" I know view black holes.

 

[Peter Watkins]

So what is the evidence that states otherwise, bearing in mind the the einstein on line website, promoted by Marcus, states that "rewinding" the expansion would bring us to a single point.

 

[Peter Watkins]

Re #36. Are you saying that you cannot understand the effect that gravity would have upon a large mass of expanding matter, and how it would produce the "faster with distance" view?

 

[DaveC426913]

So what is the evidence that states otherwise, bearing in mind the the einstein on line website, promoted by Marcus, states that "rewinding" the expansion would bring us to a single point.

Re #36. Are you saying that you cannot understand the effect that gravity would have upon a large mass of expanding matter, and how it would produce the "faster with distance" view?

Please use the quote feature. It is very difficult to figure out exactly what your responses are referring to.

 

[Peter Watkins]

How do I do that? Is it as simple as just ticking the box?

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry Dave...thread locked.